The Interactive Dynamics of Regulation : Exploring the Council of Europe's Monitoring of Ukraine

by Nordström, Anders

Abstract (Summary)

In a time when a host of new and untested democracies seek membership in international organisations founded on liberal norms, the question of how to include new members without jeopardizing community values has become of growing concern, particularly as the regulation of practices in sovereign states often relies on soft moral or political commitment rather than on hard legal obligation. The Council of Europe’s (CoE) monitoring of new members after entry represents a soft method of socialising newcomers. In the case of Ukraine, this process has been unusually difficult, and full of strife and open confrontation. This experience runs contrary to the belief that soft regulation is either harmonic or impossible. The aim of the thesis is to explore how a regulated process of inclusion develops over time, and to discuss how such a process can safeguard community values.The study shows that an interactive dynamic developed between the European and the Ukrainian levels. The political struggle in Ukraine was, through the actions of the political opposition in Ukraine and the CoE’s monitors, transformed into a contest in the CoE over how to interpret Ukraine’s membership promises. European values were protected by the evolution of a mode of governance based on responsiveness to local concerns and on public discussion. In the process, the legal and political systems of the CoE and Ukraine were intertwined in ever more complex webs of dialogue. By being grounded in both the Ukrainian and European political discourses, the process was able to sustain a critical discussion on the terms of the agreement and maintain its relevance for the actors involved. The monitoring process displays how community values and autonomy of a member state can be combined in an unexpected way without resulting in a hierarchical order. This may not fulfil the requirements of the international rule of law, but it is clearly a case of soft and responsive transnational regulation of state practices.